Interests:Hunting, gun collecting, shooting, model tank building and my family

Posted 24 February 2005 - 09:09 PM

Just another thought. The initial post was an offer to make a contract. The first unconditional acceptance formed a contract and is enforcable in most states. If I thought I was the first reply accepting his terms and he would not sell me the guns I would seriously think about seeing a lawyer. I have won cases just like this one.

Just another thought. The initial post was an offer to make a contract. The first unconditional acceptance formed a contract and is enforcable in most states. If I thought I was the first reply accepting his terms and he would not sell me the guns I would seriously think about seeing a lawyer. I have won cases just like this one.

Not likely. The UCC statute of frauds would keep this deal from being enforceable against the seller unless there is a piece of paper with the seller's signature on it reflecting the deal.

What IF the Buyer happens to be a Dealer who obviously knows what the Collection is worth, one would think that the Seller could file suit for being taken advantage of. Just a thought. Of course I'm not an Attorney, and a Suit could be filed anyhow if the Seller wanted too. Whether or not he would get anything, is anybody's guess..

The dealer who steered the gentleman to the internet should be applauded. He could have offered the gentleman $2,500 per gun and walked away a fat, happy cat. He did not.

The seller realized much more than he would have had he never learned about the internet and Sturmgewher. Had the seller been a little more savvy, nothing prevented him from clicking the search button on the NFA section, and see what Thompsons were selling for. OR he could have done some more investigation, himself or through his grandson. Google

Yep, he sold too cheap in today's market. We all have picked up deals from time to time. I have bought many firearms and MG's at 50% of internet pricing. This isn't the only circle that MG's move in.

On the issue of deleting the post, if the seller and the first guy struck a deal, agreeable by both, why did it matter if it was deleted? The only thing the subsequent e-mails did was cause the seller to back out of a deal he made. Not an honorable thing to do.

On the issue of deleting the post, if the seller and the first guy struck a deal, agreeable by both, why did it matter if it was deleted? The only thing the subsequent e-mails did was cause the seller to back out of a deal he made. Not an honorable thing to do

First Guy? We know that he received numerous emails about his Collection. We do not know whether the first guy, the 5th guy, or the 20Th guy made the offer, or even stated that he would take everything for the listed prices. Nor, do we know if the Seller backed out of a Committed Sale with someone else. That hasn't been determined, nor raised within this thread. Purely speculation to suggest the Seller is Dishonest when none of us here know exactly what had taken place, or what has become of said Collection thus far..

I do not intend to turn this into a bash Strurmgewer session, but lets take a look at this. Let me begin by saying I do not visit or post on that board, it has become too much of a hassle as posts are deleted one whatever Buddy's whim is that day; rules are one thing, but it has gone WAY beyond that. That is beside the point, what I find astonishing is not that the post was deleted, hell, he peobably forgot to put his state next to his name or some other such non-sense, but that a moderator would contact the seller and tell him he priced his stuff too low. The seller obviously got many emails offering him more $$ and informing him that he was underpriced, but it sure rubs me the wrong way that a moderator from the board writes, and although he says he does not sugest the seller back out, does everything but that.

Like I said, I am biased going into this because of the juvenille antics and random power trips of Buddy, but this takes the cake. The meglomania of everyone running that site is simply too much.

About a year and a half ago, I was a partner in a 40 gun deal. We bought some neat stuff, including Thompsons, two Stoners, a Mag 58, original factory MP5K and an unusual MG-42. The seller was the family of an estate, and knew about internet pricing. The dealer offered to broker the guns at a commission, which was rejected. We ultimately bought the guns at about half of internet pricing. The family did not want to piece-meal out the collection and deal with multiple transactions. The first offer from another party on the collection was about 25% of net prices, and the guy was a large dealer.

I have bought a couple of very good deals off Sturm and other places, at much less than typical pricing. Bought a 1919 and a Boys Anti Tank Rifle out of the middle of a federal courtroom during a trial one time at about 40% of net prices. Same on some art work as well.

Point is, a seller is under an obligation to research stuff as well. Don't put all (or any of) the blame the buyers or the guys on Sturm.

My point on the deletion, I will assume deals were struck quickly, whether the first or 10th. Hard feelings happen when a buyer is "forced" in to compromise because of pricing and counter offers.

The bullet holes are not mine . . . that's Pop range near Ft. Lauderdale . . . if anyone has been there you can understand, or for that matter, you can see from that photo, why I only shoot there when it's empty. There is some truly scary gun handling that goes on there.

Certainly nothing wrong with finding a good deal. Many of us here have stumbled across good finds in the past. I being one of them. However, it's a different manner when a DEALER outright lies to a seller proclaiming his Firearms are only worth the amount said Dealer is willing to pay. That's nothing short of Stealing in my mind. However, if it wasn't for the GREED in our Hobby, those Thompson would be priced right.

Where does this "greed" emanate from? In this case, it was not some pernicious "dealer" who set some outlandishly high price for these TSMG items. Were those who responded to the brief Sturmgewehr ad, by offering to buy at the seller's posted prices, greedy in that their motives were to resell at inflated prices? Or were those who responded to the ad with twice the lump sum than was set for each individual piece greedy?

Perhaps the pinnacle of "greed" is that practiced by those, whom Devlin described as, "DEALERS who outright lie to a seller proclaiming his Firearms are only worth the amount said Dealer is willing to pay." But I wouldn't hesitate to ad private parties to that particular group who also have no compunction about preying on uninformed sellers. Now that is not an indictment against being a savvy buyer, but to suggest that NFA deals transacted outside of the Internet are more representative of true market values is absurd.

The major skewed factor that seems to differentiate the prices of a word of mouth deal and an internet deal are the number of people alerted to the sale. Those who describe incredible scores on NFA items that are transacted in private may, or may not, be on the level. There is no way to determine the validity of the tale. But one thing we know for sure about this Sturmgewehr ad is that, even for the fraction of time the ad was active, there was no shortage of folks who would fall over themselves to offer more than the "private party" type sale would generate, if in the "PP" sale there were more than one interested buyer involved in a deal with a clueless seller.